Begins = "The Batmobile is a prototype Wayne Enterprises Military Vehicle that can jump gaps"

B89 = "The Batmobile...is the f**king Batmobile. Who gives a s**t where it came from? It's really fast and it looks awesome...DEAL WITH IT!"

CFE

Exactly. The Batmobile is the prime example of Nolan explaning something that didn't require it. The audience does not need to be convinced the Batmobile could exist, the audience buys the ticket, they already want to accept the Batmobile. You don't go and see Star Wars and then say, "Hey, I don't buy all this 'Force' stuff."

So many well thought out and in-depth opinions I feel mine may be a bit shallow.

Withouth B89' there probably wouldnt be a BB or TDK (I agree with whoever said this fully).

Do I think that it is superior to BB, no. But that's mostly because I dig all of the realism put into BB and explanation of things; thought not necessary, I dug it. One thing that I like so much about BB is that it made me repsect the villains again (in the movies). Whereas once I got a little older I really couldn't get into Jacks forced Joker portrayal or DeVito's gross version of the Penguin. I figure most of the reason for that is because it's Burtons interpretation. Which, someone else already stated, B89 is more of a Burton film than a Batman film; this too I agree with.

I don't really see the complaints the original poster of this thread has with the movie. To each his own. I don't think much of this made sense.

If you don't like the Burton films, just head on over to The Dark Knight boards. Can't go into a thread without a flock of posters going on and on about how terrible Burton's films are while Nolan is the best thing to ever happen to the caped crusader. A film can't be overrated if everyone thinks it's so inferior

__________________"When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher's knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross"- Harry Callahan

Well no, it's not so much that people should respect the original films because they killed the franchise and paved the way for "Begins" and "TDK"...the original flms should be respected for revolutionizing the genre in their own right.

Anyone who thinks the original "Batman" movies were bad is ignorant. Burton's films are spectacular...And unlike "Begins," THOSE films didn't have to spoon-feed the audience with explination, realism and easy-to-follow, see-it-from-a-mile-away plot.

Begins = "The Batmobile is a prototype Wayne Enterprises Military Vehicle that can jump gaps"

B89 = "The Batmobile...is the f**king Batmobile. Who gives a s**t where it came from? It's really fast and it looks awesome...DEAL WITH IT!"

CFE

I don't think you understand..

Batman 89. Bruce Wayne was already Batman, so of course he would have The Batmobile already and the Bat suit.

Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne was starting up as Batman, so we were introduced to the suit and what it does, the cape and what it does and the Batmobile and what it was originally for.. They can't just go. "Ok, Bruce Wayne flies back to Gotham. He instantly gets his suit and Batmobile. Now he can go fight crime". Hell, they even showed him making the little Batman symbols he throws..

He couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, even with his targeting computer thingie.

He must have trained at the Imperial Academy.

Batman was trying to terrorize Joker with the Batplane, make the Joker defenseless by shooting Joker's men and scare Joker by shooting all around him, fear and intimidation are Batman's greatest weapons. Batman wanted to savor the moment and prolong Joker's agony. There would have been no satisfaction in killing Joker right away. But everything leading up to the killing would have been real satisfying. Everything seemed to be going so well. Batman though he had made Joker defenseless, Batman thought he had everything under control, and I'm sure he thought Joker would be screaming for mercy, trying to run away, but Joker stood his ground fearlessly with no fear of death and had another surprise prepared for Batman - an obscenely long phallic gun with an explosive shell.

Batman 89. Bruce Wayne was already Batman, so of course he would have The Batmobile already and the Bat suit.

Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne was starting up as Batman, so we were introduced to the suit and what it does, the cape and what it does and the Batmobile and what it was originally for.. They can't just go. "Ok, Bruce Wayne flies back to Gotham. He instantly gets his suit and Batmobile. Now he can go fight crime". Hell, they even showed him making the little Batman symbols he throws..

Yes, Batman's origin has been told plenty of times over seventy years. This is the first time anyone has felt the need to explain the Batmobile.

Batman 89. Bruce Wayne was already Batman, so of course he would have The Batmobile already and the Bat suit.

Batman Begins. Bruce Wayne was starting up as Batman, so we were introduced to the suit and what it does, the cape and what it does and the Batmobile and what it was originally for.. They can't just go. "Ok, Bruce Wayne flies back to Gotham. He instantly gets his suit and Batmobile. Now he can go fight crime". Hell, they even showed him making the little Batman symbols he throws..

So explain to me how in "Batman: Year One" Bruce goes from bleeding in his father's study to attacking three punks in the full-on Batsuit...I mean Bruce was starting up as Batman THEN as well as in "Begins". Why didn't Miller explain the suit to us?

Yes, Batman's origin has been told plenty of times over seventy years. This is the first time anyone has felt the need to explain the Batmobile.

The majority of people who have seen Batman Begins would have not read the comics before. Also explaining the origin of the Batmobile and the suit was to show that Wayne Enterprises were dabbling in some pretty heavy Military technology. Which also explains the Microwave Emitter belonging to Wayne Enterprises.

So explain to me how in "Batman: Year One" Bruce goes from bleeding in his father's study to attacking three punks in the full-on Batsuit...I mean Bruce was starting up as Batman THEN as well as in "Begins". Why didn't Miller explain the suit to us?

Believe me I DO understand...completely.

CFE

But Batman Begin's is not an adaption from Frank Millers Year One.. So why would it matter if Frank Miller didn't describe it, but Chris Nolan did?

Although I disagree with you, I do have the feeling sometimes that a lot of people love it the most mainly out of nostalgia.

Of course I'm not speaking for everyone, as some people are bound to love this movie, and I myself like it, but it is true that I've had this impression many times already, that some people like it because it's the first one, or because it's the one they grew up with, or whatever...

I also often hear people say that Nicholson's Joker was the best joker there could ever be, not because he was good, but because his name's Jack Nicholson. Well, let them be.

Now, my opinion is that it's a very good movie, although lacking a bit of action here and there. I like how they portrayed Batman as ruthless, although I didn't like that they made him THAT ruthless (killing thugs like he doesn't care about other people's lives anymore). I also didn't like the fact that they turned the Batmobile into a war vehicle, with lethal armament all over the place, and that he actually uses this armament against people.

The only other thing that I could say is that it's more a Burton movie than it is a Batman movie.

Other than that, I love Jack Nicholson as the Joker, Keaton as Batman, I love the scene where the Joker dances (to Prince is it?) and ruins the art gallery, I love the finale.

Anyone who says that without Batman 89 there'd be no Begins or TDK is wrong.

Do you really think that no one would have had the idea to make a Batman movie even if Burton hadn't?? Don't fool yourselves, Begins and TDK are in no way related to the first four movies, they don't even acknowledge them, they make no reference to them, they're basically a brand new take on the franchise and thus would have been done Batman 89 or not.

I'm not saying that they would have been the same, cause of course, we'd be in a completely different timeline, and a lot of things would be different, but Batmovies would still exist and no one owes Batman 89 for that.

Batman was trying to terrorize Joker with the Batplane, make the Joker defenseless by shooting Joker's men and scare Joker by shooting all around him, fear and intimidation are Batman's greatest weapons. Batman wanted to savor the moment and prolong Joker's agony. There would have been no satisfaction in killing Joker right away. But everything leading up to the killing would have been real satisfying. Everything seemed to be going so well. Batman though he had made Joker defenseless, Batman thought he had everything under control, and I'm sure he thought Joker would be screaming for mercy, trying to run away, but Joker stood his ground fearlessly with no fear of death and had another surprise prepared for Batman - an obscenely long phallic gun with an explosive shell.

But Batman Begin's is not an adaption from Frank Millers Year One.. So why would it matter if Frank Miller didn't describe it, but Chris Nolan did?

But according to you, a story that takes place with Bruce prior to becoming Batman requires absolute explination of every single minut detail.

I'm just using "Year One" to point out that that's not the case at all. I don't need to be handed a step-by-step manual on "How to Be Batman" to enjoy watching Batman kick ass, drive a fast car, look like a bat and protect a metropolitian city.

"Begins" seems to forget one very strong aspect of the Batman character...his sense of mystery; his privacy. There's something far more exciting about not knowing how exactly Bruce came to construct the suit or the car. A "Less is More" situation...

If I'm paying money to go see a "Batman" movie, I'm not paying to watch a 30 minute tutorial on the uses of a utility belt...I'm paying it to watch a guy dressed as a giant terrifying bat beat the snot out of a homicidal clown.

But I DO have a feeling that, with the origin out of the way, "TDK" will be a little bit better about not going on long diatribes when they aren't needed like in "Begins."

However, thanks to the over-analization presented in "Begins," Bale's Batman will NEVER have the sense of awe and mystery that Keaton's Batman did.

And with THAT said, I stand on my belief that "Begins" is in actuality a tad more overrated than "B89."

I'm just using "Year One" to point out that that's not the case at all. I don't need to be handed a step-by-step manual on "How to Be Batman" to enjoy watching Batman kick ass, drive a fast car, look like a bat and protect a metropolitian city.

Except that in the case of Begins, that was the whole point of the movie. Show how he came to be and "where he got these wonderful toys"... Nolan made it clear so many times. Of course you're free not to like that, all I'm saying is: that was the point.